Is there One Protestant in the First Millenium?

[ivebeenshown]

And said dissent and sedition would have to be against things that God established.

Which would NOT include torturing, maiming, and killing fellow believers!

So IBS' Scripture here totally does NOT apply.

Bold and increasingly large letters do nothing to reinforce arguments.

Fortunately for both you and I, I have not said that God 'established the torturing, maiming, and killing of fellow believers!' Just because some people abused their positions does not make their position invalid. If a congressman abuses his position, he was still legitimately elected a congressman, he was just a poor one.

This is neverminding the fact that you just yell and scream "NO!" instead of demonstrating what Paul was speaking about. Go on, tell me! What on earth could Paul be talking about when he says dissenters won't inherit the kingdom of God? Or where did Paul say that anyone could just appoint themselves to the position of bishop and be considered legitimate?

 

[peggy sue]

The word sedition also means division too, even when you look up schism that too means division, or rent, different words are used, but seems like schism is a more acceptable form of division. Or maybe it seems so between the bigger churches which have divided or schismed

Sedition/ dichostasia = division 2, sedition 1

Schsim / schisma= division 5, rent 2, schism 1

You could do whatever everyone else does, let things go in one ear and out the other, worked with my mom and dad for awhile

i think it would really rely upon who was leaving sound doctrine or who was staying in sound doctrine, its unbiblical to believe Jesus or the apostles would want His sheep to follow false apostles or false doctrine, and it would also be unbiblical to stay in a church that accepted false teaching and try to turn the people of that church against the leadership that was trying to teach it. i personally believe the terms given in this passage refers to those who introduce false teaching and doctrine and lead Gods sheep astray, from the truth

 

[peggy sue]

Galatians 5
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Within, say... the first generation of priests and bishops that were appointed by the Apostles themselves, but after the Apostles died, do you think anyone could just make themselves a priest or bishop if they decided to split off from the established authorities?

the apostles didn't appoint priest, there is nothing in scripture that would even lead anyone to that notion, in fact Paul even mentions in the new covenant we all become priest, appointing priest and cardinals and a pope is all in error of what the bible teaches as to what the God given appointments are in the body of Christ, you can find these appointments listed in 1 Cor. 12:27-31 and Ephesians 4:11-13 anything other than these are in complete error and the appointments of these positions must follow the guidlines set forth in 1 Timothy 3..........anything outside these biblical perimeters is not following God or what He has outlined the church to follow

 

[Standing Up]

Oh well, if that's all that's going to be addressed

Only if you can't summarize the conversation. If you can, then we can talk.

 

[Standing Up]

So then everybody was always Pr, /thread, FTW

No really, what were you thinking?

That's what I was trying to find out.

 

[Standing Up]

do you have any better examples of one Protestant in the first millenium. if you please, give us your best example


you gave the example of Irenaeus. Irenaeus who said that the Gospel was handed on in the Scriptures to be the Pillar and Foundation of our faith

and that "all the Churches must agree with the Roman Church"

and that "the bread and wine become the Body and Blood"

and that the true Church is "the Catholic Church"

and that the Gospel is preserved through "Succession of Bishops"

and that the Lord's Supper is "the Sacrifice of the New Covenant prophesied by Malachi"

and that we are "cleansed of sin by the sacred water and the word of the Lord"

and that infants can be born again

and that Mary was made by God "the cause of our salvation"


[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif]Irenaeus[/FONT]

"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).

The Sacrifice of the Mass | Catholic Answers

Well, we're still waiting for all the EOs to agree with you and Irenaeus and change their icons.

Keep in mind Irenaeus chose Sixtus/Rome's formed custom over apostolic teaching re easter. So, I'd suggest taking Irenaeus with a hill of salt.

 

[patricius79]

Well, we're still waiting for all the EOs to agree with you and Irenaeus and change their icons.

Keep in mind Irenaeus chose Sixtus/Rome's formed custom over apostolic teaching re easter. So, I'd suggest taking Irenaeus with a hill of salt.

this thread is not about EO-Catholic differences but about whether there is one Protestant interpeter of the N.T. in the first millenium?


who would you give as the best example?

I'm just going by what Irenaeus said explicitly, such as all must agree with the the Roman Church, the Lord's Supper is the Sacrifice of the New Covenant, Mary is "the cause of our salvation", the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, "the Catholic Church" is the true Church, etc

[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif]Irenaeus[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][/FONT]
"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Born Again in Baptism | Catholic Answers

 

[Montalban]

BUMP

For one thing, it's being said that when I agree that we should submit to Rome, that I should change my faith icon.

This is based on a misunderstanding of what I said, for although I can agree that we should submit, I don't agree with the reasons why.

I am however unsure of how Protestants agree with it - especially those using him (Irenaeus) as a source - which bishops do they submit to?

I still don't know what point is trying to be made. Now instead of answering that, I'm supposed to set out an account of what's being said

 

[Standing Up]

this thread is not about EO-Catholic differences but about whether there is one Protestant interpeter of the N.T. in the first millenium?


who would you give as the best example?

I'm just going by what Irenaeus said explicitly, such as all must agree with the the Roman Church, the Lord's Supper is the Sacrifice of the New Covenant, Mary is "the cause of our salvation", the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, "the Catholic Church" is the true Church, etc

[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif]Irenaeus[/FONT]


"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Born Again in Baptism | Catholic Answers

The obvious answer is all the OOs and EOs (assuming they disagree with your interpretation).

 

[Montalban]

So how do Protestants agree with Irenaeus?

 

[Standing Up]

So how do Protestants agree with Irenaeus?

Same way as EO and OO and Old Catholics, etc.

 

[Montalban]

Then we're back to everyone agreeing

This cycle will be broken if my question is answered

 

[Lady Bug]

Then we're back to everyone agreeing

This cycle will be broken if my question is answered

I never got a question answered either someplace

 

[Montalban]

Apparently I have to summarise the points of what someone else is saying before I can be told what they're saying!

 

[Montalban]

I never got a question answered either someplace

You can ask me something, if that would help

I'll try and answer

 

[Lady Bug]

You can ask me something, if that would help

I'll try and answer

I wrote this on another thread and have yet to hear any answer from any Protestant on this

When Jesus told this to the apostles "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven," how do Protestants interpret this version in isolation? I am genuinely curious.

http://www.christianforums.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=60116559​

no one answered me

 

[Montalban]

I wrote this on another thread and have yet to hear any answer from any Protestant on this

no one answered me

Ah, well as a non-Protestant I wouldn't know what they think about this.

I believe it has something to do with the prayer you have in your signature

 

[razeontherock]

I wrote this on another thread and have yet to hear any answer from any Protestant on this

no one answered me

I don't see why I would want to interpret anything in isolation, but in context

 

[Thekla]

I think it is. US Gov't has not executed people for religious reasons. The Roman empire certainly did, both before Christianity and in it's name.

With the coming of Christ, the standard is different.

Throughout the Americas, particular groups of Christians were singled out; we funded and trained those who targeted them for a variety of "correctives".

 

[SolomonVII]

I wrote this on another thread and have yet to hear any answer from any Protestant on this

When Jesus told this to the apostles "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven," how do Protestants interpret this version in isolation? I am genuinely curious.

no one answered me

As a nation of priests in the order of Melchizidek as per Scripture, it is not just the official ecclesiastical authorities of a church that have the power to bind and unbind.
We really need to understand that we ourselves have been invested with this authority, quite literally.
The kind of world we are in really depends on our ability to forgive each other.